It's never really been about pride in your orientation, anyway. It's more like pride in the fact that you are open and comfortable with your orientation, which very much is a sort of personal accomplishment.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I understand completely. Next time someone says it, ask about another dimension: the object's "weighth". I've done it a few times, and it makes me giggle inside.

thecommabandit wrote:Kiss.

I hate it and all its derivatives. It's an awful word, I hate saying it, I hate writing it, I hate how it's spelt, I hate the way the mouth moves when you say it, I REALLY hate this word.

Okay, first, it's "spelled". "Burnt" is also INCORRECT! Ugh... It's burned. There are words like "felt", where the past tense turns the last part of the word to a t, but, to most words, this DOES NOT APPLY!

Second, I agree. I feel like someone is making fun of me when I say it. The word doesn't do the action justice, and it needs a different name. It's just... wrong. It doesn't match. I like your substitution: "kella". It reminds me of Elaine Benes in Seinfeld: "STELLAAAAAAA!!!!!"

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

mojacardave wrote:But that was my point: in gay/race/trans/female/whatever situations, pride is used to mean something which isn't actually pride.

How are you judging what is "actually pride"?

I meant a dictionary definition. Which is a valid way to determine what a word actually means. Except I didn't use a dictionary, and I imagine that nowadays, pride would also have secondary definitions, stemming from the fact that it has been used for 'Pride Marches' for decades. It doesn't mean that initially the right word was used, although I've seen some nice explanations in the last page which make it less objectionable to me.

I think the big problem I face, when trying to argue against 'Pride' as a word, is that people instantly assume that I'm homophobic, and I'm saying that gay people should be ashamed. Then, they discover I'm gay myself, and assume I'm some kind of closet self-hating gay.

I'm perfectly happy and open, sometimes even blatant. I just dislike the definition of the word, when used to describe how people feel about inherent and unchangeable personal characteristics. (Aside: Pride in yourself in that sense, just because of what you are, is supposedly a 'Deadly Sin'. I personally don't see anything wrong with a bit of self-confidence, but using 'Pride' in the religiously evil sense seems almost counter-productive to the whole acceptance cause.)

Off topic for this thread, but on-topic for the argument in general: I know that sexuality can be a fluid thing. People fit onto a sliding scale of gender, and they are attracted to other people somewhere on the same sliding scale, so people aren't necessarily gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight. Societies for non-straights (for lack of an agreed blanket term) need to be inclusive to everybody, as the whole point of them is that people can be themselves. However, is it REALLY 100% necessary to attempt to cover every variation of sexuality in the acronym? I've seen over the years: LGB, LGBT, LGBTO, LGBTUA, LGBTIQ and now, thanks to an xkcd posters signature: LGBTQIQ! Maybe it's time to come up with a new way of naming 'diverse sexuality' groups, because the current system seems pretty ridiculous...

I hate it and all its derivatives. It's an awful word, I hate saying it, I hate writing it, I hate how it's spelt, I hate the way the mouth moves when you say it, I REALLY hate this word.

Second, I agree. I feel like someone is making fun of me when I say it. The word doesn't do the action justice, and it needs a different name. It's just... wrong. It doesn't match.

The German word küssen (to kiss) is a bit better, because ü shapes the mouth more in a kissing way.

mojacardave wrote:

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:

mojacardave wrote:But that was my point: in gay/race/trans/female/whatever situations, pride is used to mean something which isn't actually pride.

How are you judging what is "actually pride"?

I meant a dictionary definition. Which is a valid way to determine what a word actually means. Except I didn't use a dictionary, and I imagine that nowadays, pride would also have secondary definitions, stemming from the fact that it has been used for 'Pride Marches' for decades. It doesn't mean that initially the right word was used, although I've seen some nice explanations in the last page which make it less objectionable to me.

Let's check some dictionaries. (I leave out the lions etc.)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pride1 : the quality or state of being proud: as a : inordinate self-esteem : conceit b : a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c : delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>2 : proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : disdain3 a : ostentatious display b : highest pitch : prime4 : a source of pride : the best in a group or class ...http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/pride%5B1%5D1 [noncount] a : a feeling that you respect yourself and deserve to be respected by other people : self-respect b : a feeling that you are more important or better than other people 2 a : a feeling of happiness that you get when you or someone you know does something good, difficult, etc. [noncount] ...http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/stud ... t&va=pride1 : too high an opinion of one's own ability or worth : a feeling of being better than others2 : a reasonable and justifiable sense of one's own worth : SELF-RESPECT3 : a sense of pleasure that comes from some act or possession4 : something of which one is proud <our pride and joy>...http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... _1?q=pridea feeling of pleasure and satisfaction that you get because you or people connected with you have done or got something good-- She felt a great sense of pride as she watched him accept the award.-- He felt such pride walking his little daughter down the street.take pride in sth/sbto feel very pleased about something or someone you are closely connected with-- If you don't take professional pride in your work, you're probably in the wrong job.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pride1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.2. the state or feeling of being proud.3. a becoming or dignified sense of what is due to oneself or one's position or character; self-respect; self-esteem.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pride1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.4.a. A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride.b. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth.5. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit....

Of course we would need to check dictionaries from 50 years ago to find that all of them lack the self-respect definition. I very much doubt this was the case. Certainly gay pride was unknown only some decades ago. But pride was already used in a lot of senses that did not involve one's own achievements: Parental pride. National pride. Was a proud prince in the middle age one that had high achievements? No, just one that was given this status by birth.

mojacardave wrote:I think the big problem I face, when trying to argue against 'Pride' as a word, is that people instantly assume that I'm homophobic, and I'm saying that gay people should be ashamed. Then, they discover I'm gay myself, and assume I'm some kind of closet self-hating gay.

No, I think you are a prescriptive linguist. Most of these died out a hundred years ago or so .

Off topic for this thread, but on-topic for the argument in general: I know that sexuality can be a fluid thing. People fit onto a sliding scale of gender, and they are attracted to other people somewhere on the same sliding scale, so people aren't necessarily gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight. Societies for non-straights (for lack of an agreed blanket term)

Queer.

need to be inclusive to everybody, as the whole point of them is that people can be themselves. However, is it REALLY 100% necessary to attempt to cover every variation of sexuality in the acronym?

Yes, it is.

I've seen over the years: LGB, LGBT, LGBTO, LGBTUA, LGBTIQ and now, thanks to an xkcd posters signature: LGBTQIQ! Maybe it's time to come up with a new way of naming 'diverse sexuality' groups, because the current system seems pretty ridiculous...

I like LGBTIQQA most. Queer works well for the sexual orientation part (LGBQQA) or maybe for all of it ... trans and intersex people would have to comment whether they feel sufficiently covered by "queer" even if they are heterosexual (heterogender/heteroromantic/attracted to people of the opposite gender) - some definitely do feel covered, I have seen one call herself heteroqueer to express this.

Monika wrote:Of course we would need to check dictionaries from 50 years ago to find that all of them lack the self-respect definition. I very much doubt this was the case. Certainly gay pride was unknown only some decades ago. But pride was already used in a lot of senses that did not involve one's own achievements: Parental pride. National pride. Was a proud prince in the middle age one that had high achievements? No, just one that was given this status by birth.

I remain to be convinced. I'd definitely be curious to see dictionary archives. I have issues with all of the examples you gave as proof:

Parental pride is almost exclusively used when parents are proud of their children for some REASON. Parents LOVE their kids irregardless but I've only heard the phrase parental pride used in a context where there was a reason to be proud of their achievements, however small. When I took my first step, my mother had a real sense of parental pride etc.

National pride seems to be a pride in the 'greatness' of your country: we ought to be proud to come from Britain, because Britain is... or because in the past Britain has done... Clearly you can be proud of somebody you're related to, or proud of a group you're a part of, but the criteria for what pride is doesn't seem to change much.

The proud prince is a really good illustration of why I dislike the word actually. The prince is proud, because he thinks that being a prince somehow makes him 'better' than other people. He is proud of his status - better to be a prince than a commoner. He hasn't achieved his position, but he is still feeling a sense of accomplishment about it - wrongly perhaps. It's an unusual example, but I think it still fits with the other definitions. He's not proud in spite of the fact that he's different, because of self-respect. He's proud BECAUSE he's different, because he thinks its something which makes him better.

NB. I did actually consider the reclaimed word 'queer' (which I like) as a blanket term, but there are people who would object to that as it's been used as a slur fairly recently, and still occasionally is by homophones.

Monika wrote:I think in the US the -t spellings are preferred, but not sure.

Nope. Maybe in Britain, but we tend to have regularized those on this side of the pond.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Eebster the Great wrote:Well "burnt" is still pretty standard in the U.S., but I virtually never see "spelt." And usually "burnt" is used as the perfect participle of "burn," not the simple past (which is "burned.").

Very oddly, I think I would in general say:

In the past I spelt a word wrongThis sign is spelled wrongly

but on the other hand, I'd say:

In the past I burned myselfThis toast is burnt

which seem to contradict each other. I've seen both in general use in the UK. Neither particularly bothers me, but in some circumstances one of them looks odd - I don't think I could ever accept 'burned' to describe toast.

Speaking of "queer", it annoys me although I don't hate it. I get the need for a blanket term, but did queer have to be it? I just can't think of a time in the last couple hundred years when it had at least a neutral connotation. It's not like gay, which used to mean something good, or even fag, which used to mean, and still does in UK English, something neutral. It doesn't annoy me much, it's more of a "But waiiiiii?" kind of response,

The other participial adjective, "concerned", has had that sense since at least 1674, according to the OED. Does that use also bother you, or is it just the use of the present participle that you don't like?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:The other participial adjective, "concerned", has had that sense since at least 1674, according to the OED. Does that use also bother you, or is it just the use of the present participle that you don't like?

No, someone being concerned (and something being a concern) seems very normal. It's just something being concerning, or very concerning, that seems odd to me. I know this usage is fairly common, but then this thread is all about irrational dislikes.

True. I just wondered if the dislike was for the sense itself, or for the active adjective in particular.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Oblong. It just seems... wrong. And it always takes me a few seconds to realize they mean rectangle.

And I have a problem with orange. I don't mind the word itself, but I'm always annoyed by the claim that there's no word that rhymes with it. Whenever I see this claim in writing, I always wondering how that person is pronouncing it. Are they pronouncing it "orAYnge" to rhyme with "strange", or "orInge" to rhyme with "binge"? Either way, it still rhymes with something.

Hephesus wrote:Guesstimate bothers me to no end and on many levels.

Doesn't bother me much. I just think of it as a synonym for "educated guess".

thecommabandit wrote:Kiss.

I hate it and all its derivatives. It's an awful word, I hate saying it, I hate writing it, I hate how it's spelt, I hate the way the mouth moves when you say it, I REALLY hate this word. I don't hate the action it describes but the word is absolutely awful. It's an evil word and we should burn it with fire from all dictionaries and replace with a better word like kella. You can give someone a kella. They can kella you. He kella'd her. It's better than that word. ANYTHING is better than that word.

Anything better than "kiss"? I don't think so. What about "snog" or "smooch"? Both horrible alternatives.

mud wrote:but one word i just hate (for no rational reason whatsoever, i think it's just the way the word -is-) is lesbian. just hate it.

Maybe we should say "sapphist" instead? (Both words are references to Sapoho of Lesbos, but as I understand it "lesbian" started off as a polite euphemism for "sapphist".)

gruckiii wrote:I hate words that are pronunciations of acronyms. Normally we don't pronounce acronyms except when they correspond to a real word. Instead we spell out the letters. Computer Scientists did not get the memo.

NO. Just no. By definition acronyms are pronounced as words and not spelled out. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acronym) Maybe you're thinking of initialisms? (But that doesn't make much sense either, because if it can be pronounced as a word, it usually ends up being an acronym instead of an initialism.)

Take these well-known acronyms...

ABBA (Agnetha, Benny, Björn, Anni-Frid)

Laser (Light Amplification by Stimulation of Emitted Radiation)

Scuba (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

Are you saying that we should be spelling them out instead of pronouncing them like words?

Fat Tony wrote:I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying T's are bad because they bring the word/sentence to a stop if pronounced correctly, but they're usually pronounced more like D's anyways.I don't see what's wrong with them at the start of a word (like Tony), and normally at the end of a word, they're pronounced more as a grunt than an actual T (you don't give the T in "fat" or "out" the same bite as you do in "taco" or "Tucker").

????How the hell are you pronouncing those words? I pronounce the T in "fat" and "out" exactly the same as I pronounce the T in "taco" and "tucker". Must be a difference in regional accents.

Realizing how long it'd take me to read through this entire thread, I think I'll just stop here for now and post what I've already written.

Fat Tony wrote:I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying T's are bad because they bring the word/sentence to a stop if pronounced correctly, but they're usually pronounced more like D's anyways.I don't see what's wrong with them at the start of a word (like Tony), and normally at the end of a word, they're pronounced more as a grunt than an actual T (you don't give the T in "fat" or "out" the same bite as you do in "taco" or "Tucker").

????How the hell are you pronouncing those words? I pronounce the T in "fat" and "out" exactly the same as I pronounce the T in "taco" and "tucker". Must be a difference in regional accents.

I don't know where you're from, but I really strongly doubt that's true. When discussing allophones in a particular language, the differences are always fairly subtle in that language. But they are definitely there, and I would bet good money that you don't release and aspirate the /t/ at the end of a word the same way you do at the beginning. If you do, you speak English like no one else I've ever heard.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Iulus Cofield wrote:Speaking of "queer", it annoys me although I don't hate it. I get the need for a blanket term, but did queer have to be it? I just can't think of a time in the last couple hundred years when it had at least a neutral connotation. It's not like gay, which used to mean something good, or even fag, which used to mean, and still does in UK English, something neutral. It doesn't annoy me much, it's more of a "But waiiiiii?" kind of response,

Fag is short for faggot (Middle English), derived from "Fagot" (Old French) meaning "bundle of wood". Basically, something to be burned. And there was a time when homosexuals were burned at the stake, so I'm not sure that "fag" really is a neutral term for homosexuality since it kind-of implies they should be burned to death.

Brian-M wrote:I'm not sure that "fag" really is a neutral term for homosexuality since it kind-of implies they should be burned to death.

I'm likewise not sure it was ever neutral for homosexuality, but I'm also unconvinced that the homosexual meaning is connected to the burning a bundle of sticks meaning in any significant way.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

gmalivuk wrote:When discussing allophones in a particular language, the differences are always fairly subtle in that language. But they are definitely there, and I would bet good money that you don't release and aspirate the /t/ at the end of a word the same way you do at the beginning. If you do, you speak English like no one else I've ever heard.

Probably some difference, but not enough to be significantly noticeable. (At least, not for me as I sit here listening to myself practicing the words to see if I can hear the difference. Could be different when I use them in real conversation.)

ShootTheChicken wrote:I know what he means. In conversation something like "You're flat out wrong" comes out closer to "You're fladout wrong".

Brian-M wrote:And I have a problem with orange. I don't mind the word itself, but I'm always annoyed by the claim that there's no word that rhymes with it. Whenever I see this claim in writing, I always wondering how that person is pronouncing it. Are they pronouncing it "orAYnge" to rhyme with "strange", or "orInge" to rhyme with "binge"? Either way, it still rhymes with something.

Neither. Most people (at least in the US) either pronounce it as one syllable /ɔɹndʒ/, or with a schwa in the second syllable /ɔɹ.əndʒ/. Regardless, "orange" has stress on the first syllable, so it can't form a true rhyme with either "strange" or "binge". Wikipedia (as always) has more information. on the topic.

Brian-M wrote:

Fat Tony wrote:I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying T's are bad because they bring the word/sentence to a stop if pronounced correctly, but they're usually pronounced more like D's anyways.I don't see what's wrong with them at the start of a word (like Tony), and normally at the end of a word, they're pronounced more as a grunt than an actual T (you don't give the T in "fat" or "out" the same bite as you do in "taco" or "Tucker").

????How the hell are you pronouncing those words? I pronounce the T in "fat" and "out" exactly the same as I pronounce the T in "taco" and "tucker". Must be a difference in regional accents.

As mentioned already, you almost certainly don't aspirate your final t's like you do your initials. There may be other differences as well. For example, my final t's show glottal reinforcement, making them sound quite different from initial t's. And if the t occurs in the right position, it may be flapped, as in "flat out".

Brian-M wrote:I'm not sure that "fag" really is a neutral term for homosexuality since it kind-of implies they should be burned to death.

I'm likewise not sure it was ever neutral for homosexuality, but I'm also unconvinced that the homosexual meaning is connected to the burning a bundle of sticks meaning in any significant way.

O.O Holy shit, someone tell me that is a folk etymology because holy shit. Er, anyway, my point is the bundle of sticks/cigarette meaning is neutral, so reappropriating it as a positive term isn't dissonant, whereas "queer" has been a term with at least a mildly derogatory/demeaning/distasteful meaning for the last couple of centuries. I have a similar reaction to the slutwalks and reappropriation of slut as a positive term that's been going on recently. Although I understand that was a reaction to a specific incident where the word slut was used. It's like if instead of queer they had used nancy-boy or maggot. Wat.

gmalivuk wrote:When discussing allophones in a particular language, the differences are always fairly subtle in that language. But they are definitely there, and I would bet good money that you don't release and aspirate the /t/ at the end of a word the same way you do at the beginning. If you do, you speak English like no one else I've ever heard.

Probably some difference, but not enough to be significantly noticeable. (At least, not for me as I sit here listening to myself practicing the words to see if I can hear the difference. Could be different when I use them in real conversation.)

You don't notice the difference because in your native language they are allophones - which roughly means they "don't make a difference" to you.I can sit here all day and say thorn sorn thorn sorn thorn and never hear a difference. That's because in my native language (German) the th sound does not exist and is a (pathological) allophone for s (in certain surroundings, like the beginning of a word). Same for way vay way vay way vay ... no noticeable difference. For me. You, listening to me, would start cringing.Not sure which languages have aspirated and unaspirated t as non-allophones ... Japanese?

Monika wrote:I can sit here all day and say thorn sorn thorn sorn thorn and never hear a difference. That's because in my native language (German) the th sound does not exist and is a (pathological) allophone for s (in certain surroundings, like the beginning of a word).

A British navy ship hit a rock in the North Sea and sent out an SOS. It was picked up by the German navy."Help! Help! We're sinking!" called the British naval captain over the radio"What are you sinking about?" came the reply

Brian-M wrote:I'm not sure that "fag" really is a neutral term for homosexuality since it kind-of implies they should be burned to death.

I'm likewise not sure it was ever neutral for homosexuality, but I'm also unconvinced that the homosexual meaning is connected to the burning a bundle of sticks meaning in any significant way.

O.O Holy shit, someone tell me that is a folk etymology because holy shit. Er, anyway, my point is the bundle of sticks/cigarette meaning is neutral, so reappropriating it as a positive term isn't dissonant, whereas "queer" has been a term with at least a mildly derogatory/demeaning/distasteful meaning for the last couple of centuries. I have a similar reaction to the slutwalks and reappropriation of slut as a positive term that's been going on recently. Although I understand that was a reaction to a specific incident where the word slut was used. It's like if instead of queer they had used nancy-boy or maggot. Wat.

To the best of my knowledge, queer has meant peculiar/strange/unusual for centuries, but it isn't inherently derogatory. There is a limit to how much reclamation work can be done with certain words. Queer started to be used as an insulting term but it sort of devolved into that from a relatively neutral place. Being gay IS peculiar/strange/unusual and not 'normal', in the sense that on average a person is straight. I suppose how insulted you are by the word queer is proportional to your desire to be seen as 'normal' in other peoples eyes.

The word fag on the other hand is either:1) An appropriation of the kindling/wood term, modified to imply that gays should be burned.2) A new word created purely as an insulting term for gays.

Since the fag/faggot abbreviation corresponds to the terminology for the wood bundle, I'd be willing to believe that derivation, though I've never seen it before. Even if it is the latter option, fag has been used with FAR more venom than queer, and in spite of your argument, never started in a neutral place when used in a gay context. Unless you have evidence of gays in the last century or so calling themselves fags?

EDIT: To remove my very out of place support for 'slutism' - I was clearly in a frisky mood last night, but the XKCD language forum probably isn't the place.

Monika wrote:I can sit here all day and say thorn sorn thorn sorn thorn and never hear a difference. That's because in my native language (German) the th sound does not exist and is a (pathological) allophone for s (in certain surroundings, like the beginning of a word).

A British navy ship hit a rock in the North Sea and sent out an SOS. It was picked up by the German navy."Help! Help! We're sinking!" called the British naval captain over the radio"What are you sinking about?" came the reply

Iulus Cofield wrote:my point is the bundle of sticks/cigarette meaning is neutral, so reappropriating it as a positive term isn't dissonant

But it wasn't the bundle of sticks/cigarette meaning that was reappropriated as a positive term. It was the derogatory homosexual meaning.

mojacardave wrote:The word fag on the other hand is either:1) An appropriation of the kindling/wood term, modified to imply that gays should be burned.2) A new word created purely as an insulting term for gays.

3) A word that had been derogatory to women since the 16th century, and then got transferred to homosexuals in the early 20th.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

mojacardave wrote:The word fag on the other hand is either:1) An appropriation of the kindling/wood term, modified to imply that gays should be burned.2) A new word created purely as an insulting term for gays.

3) A word that had been derogatory to women since the 16th century, and then got transferred to homosexuals in the early 20th.

4) abbreviation of Faggot, a type of offal, implying homosexuals are below standard and essentially waste?

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I do not think folk etymology means what you think it means. A folk etymology is when you have a word like "crevis" and then someone comes along and says everyone should call it a "crayfish" instead because "crevis" sounds kind of like it and it's a water animal so it should have the word "fish" in it.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but it seemed like you were referring to a false etymology instead. The thing about folk etymology is that they are the actual etymologies of the words.

3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

Japanese doesn't (I think), but some Indian languages (not sure which ones) distinguish aspirated and unaspirated stops.

Felstaff wrote:A British navy ship hit a rock in the North Sea and sent out an SOS. It was picked up by the German navy."Help! Help! We're sinking!" called the British naval captain over the radio"What are you sinking about?" came the reply